Moderate voters actually do make up most of the electorate. Older Democratic voters tend to be more moderate. Older voters actually do show up in November. Besides, about 3.5 million more Democratic voters preferred Hilary's positions that those of Sanders. That is why Sanders doesn't get much say in anything to do with the platform.

personality type. Moderates are all moderate versions of the personality types humans are born with, the two large ones identified so far by scientists being conservative and liberal.

Environment causes people to end up mental goulashes of various positions, conservative and liberal, but we align by how it all averages out.

The "moderate" factions of the Democratic Party have people averaging out moderate liberal and moderate conservative. The latter mostly tend to be socially liberal, though, which is usually a big part of why they joined the Democratic Party in the first place. So they swing both leftward and rightward depending on the issue. As we all do.

He's not understanding.
But he's becoming as relevant as Jim Webb.

after the election.

Sanders is making a big deal out of this because that's all he has left after his loss.

I don't see the logic in Bernie making a big fight about the platform, which is purely symbolic, and in the meantime alienating potential allies who could actually help him in congress, where things count.

That's it exactly. It's just grandstanding.

Last edited Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:48 PM - Edit history (1)

Like the code in the "Pirates" movies, it's more like guidelines.

Interesting that Sanders chose that hill on which to die (politically). An amateur to the bitter end.

It's almost like he just wants to give Hillary and Obama a slap in the face.

That's what this is about. Keeping enough followers to continue, and the convention is a giant stage with a giant audience.

Sanders is not ceding progressivism to the larger Democratic Party just because it has always been progressive and its platform is loaded with it. After all, the party never went far enough for him before and of course it is not now.

Sanders will portray issues it has not adopted as critical failures of leadership (and of course evidence of corruption) and thus reason why the revolution must continue.

"Sanders will portray issues it has not adopted as critical failures of leadership (and of course evidence of corruption) and thus reason why the revolution must continue. "

He might very well portray it that way. Because that's the way it really is.

assumptions turn out to be correct, but it's hard to imagine he'd just go back to the Senate and leave all you guys looking for a new leader and it's also hard to imagine that he won't need to draw a lot more people and funding if he is to have any impact in future.

Do you seriously think that Bernie is incapable of being wrong, and that no one can have a legitimate disagreement with him?

There is no good reason to think that the party of the SITTING PRESIDENT is going to slap him in the face.

I voted for Clinton, not Sanders. I'm willing to compromise a bit, but give away the whole freakin' store.

party platform is or that it exists.

why bother with it at all? TPP is a big thing and many Democrats don't support it as it's written. This has nothing to do with supporting Obamba. No President is 100% right; to think so is naive.

would it make any difference to anything? Not very much. Maybe a little. Symbols have some value, after all, and there's also a tradition of parties having platforms.

Many Democrats don't support TPP, that's true. But many Democrats do, including the president, who is de facto the leader of the party.

than Democratic in the Senate voting against giving Obama fast-track powers for the TPP?

And Clinton won. Past tense.

The party as a whole is not going to create an anti-Obama plank in its platform.

encompass my goals or values.

This reads like an invitation to vote Green. This is a platform that Eisenhower era Republicans would have spat out as insufficienly progressive.

I'm heartbroken.

It's about the party as a whole.

Democratic Party left me; I didn't leave the Party.

Claiming that Republicans of any era would've rejected it as too conservative is complete nonsense.

But if your goals and values don't match up with the majority of the party, so be it.

interesting seeing how straight centrists view the process. Most seem very annoyed that it is a democratic process and that the process allows for such tactics. This is the process in which our issues found traction and enough power to give the fist pushes forward. This is how Bill Clinton became the first nominee to include LGBT in his acceptance rhetoric the nominee before him had refused and he was indistinguishable from Bush on some issues.

The annoyance of more conservative members of the Party is just the background noise that comes along with progress.

But you're wrong about one thing. The people that are annoyed at the platform aren't "centrists". It's the far left that is annoyed that the platform isn't cut-and-pasted directly from berniesanders.com. And Bernie seems to be annoyed that it's a democratic process because the very democraticness of the process is why he isn't getting to write the whole platform himself.

and made null and void.

I thought Hillary came out against TPP?

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Hillary_Clinton_Free_Trade.htm

Or am I mistaken and it is actually something else?

I "Think" it's poo, but I'm not sure. Why? I just think it's kinda cute.......

Hail "Bob"!

"I thought Hillary came out against TPP?"

That was during the primary. That's over now. Now it's time to re-examine our position and understand how competitive advantage makes global trading beneficial to everyone. It's good that every American can buy a T-shirt for 5 bucks at Walmart. It's made possible by a sweatshop in Bangladesh, where the kid sewing your shirt together doesn't have access to indoor plumbing at home. But that doesn't matter. She doesn't spend much time at home anyway. She's at work 15 hours a day sewing T-shirts together.

It is a democratic process also, where individual delegates make decisions. Democracy is like that, sometimes you are in the minority on an issue.

When in fact it is you folks who need to look at the reality of the situation which is, Clinton won the nomination (maybe legitimately) but Sanders totally won the message. once again known because both Hillary and Obama has adopted his message. I doubt Senator Sanders is interested in any of your advice on how he should behave. If you are worrying about Hillary looking weak that's your problem, you need to own that, Do not blame Sander's for making Hillary look weak. Blame Hillary, her handlers and her supporters for coddling her towards weakness. Oh well, she "won" so I will wear my blue clothespin to the polling booths and vote for her. I can hardly wait for November.

Of course Bernie doesn't care about my opinion, or anyone else's except his own. He wants to be able to write the whole platform himself. He seems to think that even though he lost the election by 10 points, he represents Democratic values more than Hillary does, the voters be damned.

Well, he doesn't get to write the platform. He doesn't have the votes.

It's true that their platforms were similar in many ways, but that's hardly surprising given that they are both progressives and they voted the same way 93% of the time in the Senate.

Sanders does have the "power" to help get Trump elected, you are right about that. Hillary also has that power, of course, but she's not actually going to do that. Hopefully Bernie won't either.

Hillary can only campaign and hope her negatives improve. Sanders can say, " vote for Jill Stein" and Hillary loses. He currently holds the cards. As per the 93% this has been covered many times. The 7% is damning.

You don't give Sanders supporters nearly enough credit. Most Sanders supporters understand the stakes in this election and will vote accordingly. That means they will not be voting for Jill Stein -- they will be voting for Hillary Clinton. 80-90% are already indicating they will vote for Clinton.

Besides, Jill Stein is a political grand-stander and little more. There's little reason for anyone to vote for her, which is partly why she only garnered 0.35% of the vote in 2012.

She has even more power to throw the election to Trump than Bernie does. Yeah, Bernie can sabotage the country too if he wants. That's the only card he holds, really. Is he gonna play it out of spite? I hope not.

Who on Thursday says the Brexit is the best thing in the world and then on Friday scrubs that post and says it's awful.

And she's just as bad on a whole other host of things. Those who would just go and vote in her direction and positions aren't seriously following her and what she stands for at all. Hence it just being a whole lot of NotHillary nonsense.

But the Democratic Party is not going to treat him like a co-nominee.

We have not had a sitting President as a welcome campaigner for his successor since Reagan.
Gore distanced himself from Clinton.
McCain distanced himself from Bush.
We need the unity.

Continue with neoliberal policies and this 2016 presidential election, which will likely end up a Democratic hold to elect Hillary Clinton the 45th president of the United States, can result in 2020 Republican pickup of the presidency because, in part, the Democratic Party would fail to respond to the growing trend that people are tired of neoliberal politics doing a job on the have-nots.

With a Trump House and Trump Senate.

The Republican party will absolutely respond to the wealthy with not even a shred to give to anyone else.

The Democratic Party has chosen Clinton as our presumptive nominee, because they know she will take us in a direction that will give more to the we the people.

[font size = 7]Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie Bernie [/font]


Just kidding! I kid!



Sorry. I'm feeling silly today and you're the lucky random recipient.

Happy 4th!

It's embarrassing there are Democrats promoting it. As for Bernie - good for him. I respect a person who doesn't fold like a cheap tent. The reason we have so many trade-related problems is Bill Clinton giving into the GOP on NAFTA.

and he only got a minority of delegates to the convention. He did, however, get a significant bloc of delegates. There are enough Sanders delegates to force floor votes unless the PTB should choose to ruthlessly gavel them down. I do not think the party wants to go into the election with memories of a convention when a significant voting bloc in the party was totally shut out. The Sanders delegates will be heard either as contributors to the platform or as a loud chorus of boos. They are "true believers" and will not go quietly into the night. I would presume that the Clinton's are politically astute enough to know that and will make every effort (within reason) to accommodate the Sanders bloc and avoid third party defections and stay-at-homes in November.

Done.

depends on your definition of "reason".

though it depends on how much of a stink the loser makes and how much the winner is willing to give to achieve full party unity.

we were only arguing over who was the better person to enact that legislation.

compromise paid to the runner up. I'm feeling like that's pretty much what's going on now - and I believe in the end this will be a good thing. I stand by my feeling that he could have had more influence and ultimately seen more tangible, lasting and sustained gains for his coalition if he had tried the sugar approach instead of vinegar.

Most middle school kids have a higher social awareness.